All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unfasible and unfair.

2. The judgment of this case is an unfavorable circumstance, such as the fact that the defendant deceivings the victims in a planned manner and obtained money, which is not good in the nature of the crime, the sum of the acquired money, which is about KRW 398 million, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four years on January 30, 2008 due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (afforging) on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (afforging), and committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime without being aware of the completion of the execution of the sentence on April 24,

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant fully recognized each of the crimes of this case and against his mistake, that the defendant agreed with the victim G, P and V prior to the judgment of the court below, and repaid approximately KRW 26.5 million to the victim N, that the victim N paid additional KRW 10 million to the victim N, and that the victim did not want to be punished by the agreement, and that each of the crimes of this case should be considered at the same time in the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of fraud for which the judgment first became final and conclusive, etc., and the equality in the case of judgment should be considered.

The above circumstances and the lower court appears to have determined the sentence by fully taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant, and the additional agreement with the victim N was already considered in the lower court. Considering the amount of the party repayment to the said victim and the amount of the victims acquired by fraud, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed as special circumstances or changes in circumstances that make it possible to change the original sentence, and other arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc.